A Quiet Place (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

I don't think Malcolm's description is bad, but I also think that there's the potential to get the wrong idea -- it could leave the reader with the impression that only this one specific family is dealing with a threat that's specific to them, rather than giving a more accurate impression that society at large has collapsed due to a planet-wide thread against all of humanity.

That's exactly what I got from the trailers. Colin's reveal that this was a planet-wide infestation of aliens that had decimated all of humankind was a surprise reveal (to me, anyway). I think that's a significant spoiler to most (though spoilers don't bother me much, personally).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think this is a great discussion about what constitutes a spoiler - and I also think it's clear from this discussion that reviewers probably shouldn't spend too much time being concerned about this.

For those readers who want to go in blindly (or as close to that as possible) no amount of vague writing will make everyone happy. But on the flip side, the less detail one brings up in writing a review, the less ability one has to critique that film. A review, in a sense, is like an argument or an essay - I'm trying to convince you of something and I'll cite evidence to make my point. If I can't cite any evidence, it's very hard to make an effective point. Someone who doesn't care about reviews anyway won't be bothered by that, but those who do look to reviews will be. So as a writer, I feel like my concern needs to be for the people who intend to read, who are gladly trading total surprise for a little bit of context, and do my best to use the movie's own stengths and weaknesses to express my reactions.

What's interesting to me about this discussion with this specific film is that I believe talking about the film's prologue allows a critic to analyze the entire film while only revealing details from the first ten minutes or less. For most movies that I see and write about, I feel like I need to be able to freely discuss the first 20-30 minutes to get a handle on it. And that doesn't necessarily mean transcribing every detail from the film and writing it down. A review is more than just a summary, or should be, at any rate. But I feel like there usually is a certain amount of detail that's needed. A review needs to work for people who have seen the movie too and want to reflect on what they've just watched. I find it difficult and unenjoyable to read reviews where the writer feels that they can't say anything about the film at all.

 

[Dick]

Someone above this post may have already talked about this, but here goes...

I saw this yesterday and would have loved it unconditionally except for...a number of jarring sound jolts.

John Krasinski has made a generally awesome sci-fi film, choosing incredible effective sound manipulations and some absolute silence in many places. We get that so seldom that I can't actually name another movie off the top of my head that revels in its silent passages as much as this one does since, say, RIFIFI.

However, at about a half-dozen points, the director/composer choose to fall back on the tired cliche of accompanying a quick visual occurrence with a loud burst of music or sound effect. This film DID NOT NEED THAT. One specific example: in a cornfield, a child's hand suddenly reaches into the frame and grabs another's by the wrist. On the soundtrack there is a ridiculously loud sound that in no way resembles what a person grabbing another by the wrist would sound like, plus a burst of music. The simple visual of that hand appearing to grab the wrist is -- in and of itself -- completely adequate for startling the crap out of us...the composer and sound editor need not have been involved.

What makes this film so otherwise dynamic and almost unbearably tense is the absence of sound, not the augmentation of it. There were other momentary instances of such augmentation throughout the film that nearly deafened me. I asked the manager if he was running the film at reference sound levels and he insisted he was. If so, that is a major weakness (aside from plot holes) that keeps this from being a four-star effort.

Aside: I paid for (in advance) a seat in my local Regal in row B center, my favorite seat. Two seats down from me sat an older couple with their popcorn and candy. Although they didn't talk after the trailers, their goddamn popcorn bag and candy wrappers really distracted me for about fifteen minutes. Aren't these assholes aware that they might actually be annoying to other people who came to see a movie called A QUIET PLACE?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Aside: I paid for (in advance) a seat in my local Regal in row B center, my favorite seat. Two seats down from me sat an older couple with their popcorn and candy. Although they didn't talk after the trailers, their goddamn popcorn bag and candy wrappers really distracted me for about fifteen minutes. Aren't these assholes aware that they might actually be annoying to other people who came to see a movie called A QUIET PLACE?

I think you might need the proverbial chill pill. Just because a movie is called "A Quiet Place" doesn't mean the audience needs to be absolutely silent as well.

What are audiences supposed to do - use mittens to eat during the movie?

 

[Dick]

I think you might need the proverbial chill pill. Just because a movie is called "A Quiet Place" doesn't mean the audience needs to be absolutely silent as well.

What are audiences supposed to do - use mittens to eat during the movie?

Great idea!

 

[TravisR]

However, at about a half-dozen points, the director/composer choose to fall back on the tired cliche of accompanying a quick visual occurrence with a loud burst of music or sound effect. This film DID NOT NEED THAT.

You're right that some of the "LOUD noise!" scares didn't always make sense in terms of something making a particular sound but I thought that A Quiet Place was somewhat reserved in its use of cheap "LOUD noise!" scares. Sure, there's some but it wasn't like a lot of modern movies where they have to use them because they failed to actually create suspense.

 

[Dick]

You're right that some of the "LOUD noise!" scares didn't always make sense in terms of something making a particular sound but I thought that A Quiet Place was somewhat reserved in its use of cheap "LOUD noise!" scares. Sure, there's some but it wasn't like a lot of modern movies where they have to use them because they failed to actually create suspense.

I agree that the director was, as you put it, "reserved" in his use of such loud scares. But even the ones he did use were quite unnecessary. I just think there were a half-dozen times when he second-guessed himself, and needn't have.

 

[Sam Posten]

All I can say is I disagree with both your points vehemently Dick. This film is better with a boisterous audience and the telegraphing/audio cues were perfectly timed and and executed.

New interview.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...direct-a-quiet-place?utm_source=vicetwitterus

 

[TonyD]

All I can say is I disagree with both your points vehemently Dick. This film is better with a boisterous audience and the telegraphing/audio cues were perfectly timed and and executed.

Me too. I didn’t notice anything that came across as unnecessary or gratuitous.

 

[Tino]

This film has stuck with me since I saw it a week ago. Can’t wait to see it again.

 

[WillG]

Saw it last night. Overall I was impressed with it. A film with barely any spoken dialogue is a risky prospect in this day and age. I liked that it was different (though if you’ve ever played “The Last of Us” not wholly original). Some of the plot holes some have mentioned didn’t bother me all that much (let’s face it, the premise of this move could never possibly work IRL), but there were some things that were questionable to me

Spoiler

Why did that pipe suddenly fail and flood the basement. I guess it’s something that could happen in real Iife but usually a movie will telegraph it to some degree

For how prepared that Krasinski seemed a lot of time in this world I was kind of curious why he didn’t carry some kind of noisemaking device on him when he was outside that he could toss as a diversion in a emergency. Maybe like some M-80s or something. Would have come in handy near the end. And BTW I was kind of hoping Krasinski’s would different, I don’t necessarily fault the movie, but I find the Father sacrifices himself to be kind of cliche at this point.

I kind of though that the daughter and her sense of guilt and feeling that her father blamed her for the death of their other child was somewhat underdeveloped. Unless I missed something, it didn’t really seem to get addressed until near the end

I’m surprised no one has seems to have discussed the ending so far

Spoiler

im not sure what to think about it. I don’t mind a movie keeping its ending ambiguous, but this movie just ended right in the middle of rising action. Normally I would think it’s kind of a cheat to end a movie like that, but my rationale I guess in this case is that whatever the outcome of what was about to happen doesn’t really matter, ultimately this family is pretty much fated to eventual doom. And maybe in a way that’s better. For me this is defiantly one of those movies that presents a world in which I feel that I wouldn’t want to survive anyway

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Well worth it - brilliant use of sound - really tense and loved the way it telegraphed certain events that made the tension even greater. But the film only works if you care about the characters and that was what made it work so well

Given the stellar reviews, and the way this movie showcased the sound the way Darkest Hour showcased Gary Oldman's performance, I think this is already the frontrunner for the Sound Design and (especially) Sound Mixing Oscars next year.

The actress that plays the deaf daughter (who I understand is deaf in real life) is destined for big things. Just fantastic performances all around. Who knew Jim from The Office had it in him?

After Wonderstruck and this, I think Millicent Simmonds has a real shot at being the next Marlee Matlin (ie. a Deaf actress who is a name actress even among hearing audiences).

In a way, it becomes a self-sustaining thing: Directors hire her because they have a Deaf character and she's the only Deaf actress in the age range they've heard of, which in turn builds the resume and builds the competitive advantage for future roles. And there's probably quiet a few talented young Deaf actresses that can't break in because nobody's willing to take the risk to give them that first silver screen part to prove themselves.

None of which is a slight against Simmonds. She is phenomenal here; in may ways, her character's arc is the spine of the movie.

In the silent film era, lots of Deaf actors got hired, often playing hearing characters. When you spend most of your day every day surrounded by people unequipped to communicate in your native language, you get really good at nonverbal communication, using body language and facial expression to get your point across. Even though she's not even old enough to drive, Simmonds had far more experience than any of the other actors at the kinds of communication this story required -- and not just sign language.

So I guess no one else is bothered by how many genuinely stupid moments occur in this movie?

"Hey, we need medicine. Let's not send one adult - let's bring all the kids, because nothing could go wrong!"

If I was the parent of young children in a post-apocalyptic world where ferocious carnivore alien apex predators were roaming the countryside, I'd keep my kids close too.

"Hey, let's go to a store with a lot of distractions and leave the youngest/least disciplined completely on his own - nothing could go wrong!'

If my middle child was seriously ill and needed antibiotics, I'd go to the one pharmacy in my small farm town to acquire them. I'd trust that after three months of driving the importance of silence into their heads that my kids would continue to follow the rules as they have at home for weeks and weeks now.

"Okay, the toy makes a lot of noise. I'll take it away from him but make sure that I leave it easily accessible and I don't monitor him - no problems there!"

The sister very purposefully gave her younger brother the toy but not the batteries to power it. The father clearly explained the consequences of the toy and why they had to leave it. It's on the kid that he didn't listen.

"Hey, let's have a baby - no way an infant would make any noise, right?"

I will give you this one. If ever there was a time to utilize birth control, it's this scenario right here.

I didn't have a problem with them showing that in advance because it did play into the suspense of waiting for someone to inevitably step on it. I'm paraphrasing but Hitchcock said something to the effect of that you can have a scene where a bomb just suddenly explodes and the audience will be shocked but if you show the audience the bomb in advance, the audience sits there the whole time in suspense waiting for the explosion.

This is something the movie did very well. I was expecting a ton of jump scares, but there were only a small handful. The movie got far more tension out of the genuine suspense, where we could see the alien but the characters couldn't.

As far as I remember, you're correct but I still can't buy that they've gone to the trouble of laying sand apparently for miles but no one noticed or wasn't concerned about a giant nail that was simply bent over when they're forced to walk barefoot.

It wasn't simply bent over, though. It was firmly nailed into the stair. Only the head of the nail was slightly bent. The mother's laundry bag or whatever caught on the raised edge of the head of the nail and pried it up.

It is interesting to me the vitriol that some people have for subtitles. I guess since I watch alot of anime and foreign film they don't bother me much.

I agree. And two of the shows I enjoyed a lot in recent years, "Switched at Birth" and "The Magicians", had prominent Deaf characters with subtitled sign language.

My one complaint in this area is that Krasinski and his DP Charlotte Bruus Christensen were too tight with the framing in these moments, so that most of the signing wasn't visible on screen. Given that this movie is likely to attract a lot of interest from the Deaf community, it would have been nice for them to photograph it in such a way that those who are fluent in ASL didn't have to rely on the subtitles to understand what the characters are signing.

Question about what people consider to be spoilers:

Would it be a spoiler to discuss

Spoiler

the death of the youngest child?

For me, definitely. It'd be like discussing Psycho in 1960 and revealing that Janet Leigh gets murdered in the shower. Yeah, it happens early in the running time, but it's a crucial surprise on which the remainder of the film pivots.

The New York Times review spoiled this one for me. And while it wasn't a huge surprise (based on who was and wasn't present in the trailers), the movie still would have been a bit more effective if I hadn't gone in knowing that.

For those that would have liked more background story - I didn't. Felt starting in media res - worked wonderfully.

13 Things We Learned About A QuietPlace from John Krasinski - Empire magazine interview.

I thought the movie did a very good job of giving us the information we needed to understand the rules of the world very early on, first with the old newspapers outside the pharmacy and then a short while later with the panning shot of the basement with all of the clippings the father had collected as he attempted to piece together information about this new and harrowing threat.

My favorite bit was the signal fires on top of the grain silos, so that the surviving families in the valley could communicate to each other that they were still there. And then the hopelessness that comes by the end, when the kids light the fire but don't have enough lighter fluid left to get the flames high enough, and no responses come back.

I loved that

Spoiler

It was the daughter who figured out the connection between high frequency sound and weakening/disorienting the alien monsters. The father/daughter estrangement is the heart of the movie, and the payoff of that, with the father following the son's advice and telling the daughter he loves her and has always loved her right before he sacrifices himself, and then her using the improvised hearing aid he made to neutralize the threat -- just perfect.

And the use of the wireless analog security cameras was extremely elegantly done; the daughter saw that the signal broke up into snow when the aliens got too close, and that it destroyed the broadcast equipment when it got too close, which allowed her to put two and two together with the very high frequency signal in a visual way, which in turn allowed her to make the connection with the painful feedback from the new hearing aid.

However, at about a half-dozen points, the director/composer choose to fall back on the tired cliche of accompanying a quick visual occurrence with a loud burst of music or sound effect. This film DID NOT NEED THAT. One specific example: in a cornfield, a child's hand suddenly reaches into the frame and grabs another's by the wrist. On the soundtrack there is a ridiculously loud sound that in no way resembles what a person grabbing another by the wrist would sound like, plus a burst of music. The simple visual of that hand appearing to grab the wrist is -- in and of itself -- completely adequate for startling the crap out of us...the composer and sound editor need not have been involved.

I would agree that Marco Beltrami's score was one of the weaker points for the film. I would have liked a lot more moments where the sound effects were allowed to just stand by themselves and create the ambience, without the score telling you how to feel.

I kind of though that the daughter and her sense of guilt and feeling that her father blamed her for <spoiler> was somewhat underdeveloped. Unless I missed something, it didn’t really seem to get addressed until near the end

I think there was a complex interplay going on there between the fallout from her decision to give her youngest brother the toy and her father's perceptions about the limitations inherent with her disability. The father's fear seemed to be that if she couldn't hear the noises that draw the aliens and the noises the aliens themselves make, it made her vulnerable and therefore the son was a better investment for training to be his backup. But presumably before the stakes were life and death, he never put such limitations on her and engaged in ableist thinking so the daughter thinks he's punishing her for what happened at the beginning of the movie.

I’m surprised no one has seems to have discussed the ending so far

Spoiler

im not sure what to think about it. I don’t mind a movie keeping its ending ambiguous, but this movie just ended right in the middle of rising action. Normally I would think it’s kind of a cheat to end a movie like that, but my rationale I guess in this case is that whatever the outcome of what was about to happen doesn’t really matter, ultimately this family is pretty much fated to eventual doom. And maybe in a way that’s better. For me this is defiantly one of those movies that presents a world in which I feel that I wouldn’t want to survive anyway

I had the exact opposite interpretation:

Spoiler

The movie ends with the daughter having found the frequency that debilitates the aliens, and the mother used the shotgun to kill the first one while it was in that state. My guess is that they killed the other two local aliens shortly after the movie cut to credits, and then worked to spread the word to other survivors. The global population is obviously decimated at this point, probably less than one percent of what it was before Day 1. But that's still potentially millions of people around the world, enough to get the human race started again.

If they do a sequel, they could either:

Spoiler

follow the surviving family members as they work to exterminate the threat and share their knowledge, or they could follow a different group of survivors elsewhere in the country or the world and see how they're dealing with the threat.

 

[TonyD]

I agree with adam on the ending I saw it as a clear

Spoiler

"Sign of Hope."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

If I was the parent of young children in a post-apocalyptic world where ferocious carnivore alien apex predators were roaming the countryside, I'd keep my kids close too.

Disagree. Makes MUCH more sense to leave the kids at home with one parent and send the other parent to get the medicine.

The family is way more vulnerable in the unpredictable environment of the town than the relative safety of their home.

Also much more likely one of the kids will 'go rogue' and cause problems when in a less structured setting.

If my middle child was seriously ill and needed antibiotics, I'd go to the one pharmacy in my small farm town to acquire them. I'd trust that after three months of driving the importance of silence into their heads that my kids would continue to follow the rules as they have at home for weeks and weeks now.

A) It's only been 3 months, as you note - not a ton of time to absorb the new reality of this world.
B) Kids are inherently unpredictable - and the younger they are, the less predictable.

Sorry - I still see zero reason for anyone other than the father to go into town. It's simply a choice that exists to motivate the plot and not something that makes "real world" sense...

The sister very purposefully gave her younger brother the toy but not the batteries to power it. The father clearly explained the consequences of the toy and why they had to leave it. It's on the kid that he didn't listen.

Another disagreement.

You can't leave a little kid unsupervised and expect him to "follow the rules". He's very young and clearly doesn't really understand the reality of the situation - he thinks the family will be able to take a rocket and fly away from the creatures.

This development was 100% on the parents. They supervised the kid poorly - he should've never been there in the first place, and even if you think he did need to be there, they should've watched him better...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

You can't leave a little kid unsupervised and expect him to "follow the rules". He's very young and clearly doesn't really understand the reality of the situation - he thinks the family will be able to take a rocket and fly away from the creatures.

If we accept that as true, then his fate was inevitable. If not this incident, then some other incident where his immaturity and failure to comprehend consequences would have led to the exact same reason.

I think the point of comparison can't be a kid his age in 2018 Dutchess County New York. It has to be a kid his age during the Blitz, or in a war zone, or amidst an epidemic. Kids adapt remarkably well to life and death situations.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

If we accept that as true, then his fate was inevitable. If not this incident, then some other incident where his immaturity and failure to comprehend consequences would have led to the exact same reason.

Not necessarily - all the kid needed was a little supervision. Don't let him roam unattended in the store!

I know the older daughter was supposed to watch him, but the kid was still the parents' responsibility.

Besides, the older daughter's "failure" existed just as another cheap plot point so she could have a rift with the dad.

Buck stops with the parents. Like I've said, there was no reason the whole family needed to go on this trip, and there was also no reason one parent couldn't tend to the sick kid while the other one supervised the other 2 kids.

Besides, having a sick kid makes the "let's take the whole family!" thing even dumber. He's pretty sick but they think it's a great idea to make him trudge a few miles into town?

And hey, no way a sick kid could possibly cough, sneeze, wheeze or make other noises. Makes much more sense to expose him to the elements instead of leaving him home in a better protected situation!

I think the point of comparison can't be a kid his age in 2018 Dutchess County New York. It has to be a kid his age during the Blitz, or in a war zone, or amidst an epidemic. Kids adapt remarkably well to life and death situations.

Agreed - but it's still a lot to expect a 6-year-old - or however old the youngest is supposed to be - to have the maturity necessary to really absorb the gravity of the situation.

If you have kids in a circumstance like the one in the film, you would want to keep them as restricted and controlled as humanly possible. You wouldn't let them play in old cars or wander drug stores or whatever.

Of course, 90 minutes of a family stuck in a bunker wouldn't be much of a movie, so I get that some stretches of logic must exist - I just think that "Quiet Place" pushes these too far, and there are too many of them.

It's still hard for me to exist that these dolts are part of the apparent 0.01% of civilization who managed to survive!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Adam,

I'm glad you liked the film so did I and I plan on seeing it again this week.

 

[Sam Posten]

Spoilers in this article:
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature...signed-with-just-two-months-to-go-157729.html

 

[mattCR]

Major spoiler

Spoiler

I was looking for a truly gritty version of that film. Success

 

[Malcolm R]

Our local hometown reviewer did not like it:

Max's View: A Quiet Place *1/2
I like horror movies. But I rarely watch them.

Good horror movies make me lose sleep. It’s embarrassing but true. The night after “The Blair Witch Project,” I stayed awake in terror until dawn. The night after “Paranormal Activity,” I was 80% sure that my wife slumbering soundly next to me was a vicious demon.

I only go to see horror movies when they look really good and really interesting. Last weekend I saw “A Quiet Place.” I thought it was going to be great. I was mistaken.

Writer/director and new parent John Krasinski plays Lee Abbott: the greatest dad of all time.

The movie takes place in upstate New York ...

[Spoilers Ahead]

Spoiler

...after the alien apocalypse.

We learn from newspaper clippings that a race of monsters landed a little more than a year ago and began killing people. These alien predators are blind and can’t smell. They hunt using their super hearing. By the time humanity understood this, however, most people were already dead.

Not the Abbott family, though. They’re doing just fine. Lee and his similarly perfect wife Evelyn (Emily Blunt) have made a good life for themselves and their children. They have a farm with a full granary. They have electricity and running water. They have a color-coded alien alarm system with video monitors. And somehow they were able to do all of this in total silence.

And in his free time, amazing selfless Lee tinkers with tiny speakers trying to fashion a functional homemade hearing aid for his surly deaf daughter.

I have to give Krasinski credit. He has created a brand new genre: Extreme Awesome Perfect Parenting Porn. I do not like this new genre at all. I’m pretty sure actual parents will appreciate “A Quiet Place” more than I do.

Oh, and get this: Evelyn is pregnant and Lee is delighted about it. That is certainly consistent with the new genre of Extreme Awesome Perfect Parenting Porn. But in the context of a world where aliens will devour you if they hear any sound, it makes NO DARN SENSE.

So, the family is boring. There’s virtually no dialogue. The aliens aren’t intriguing. And the ending is a carbon copy of M. Night Shyamalan’s 2002 alien movie “Signs.”

“A Quiet Place” stinks.

Oh, well. At least it didn’t make me lose any sleep.